Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Bug 927462 depends on bug 871197, which changed state.

Bug 871197 Summary: Review Request: catkin - Collection of CMake macros for ROS https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871197

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sanjay.ankur@gmail.com Alias| |roscpp_core Flags| |fedora-review?

--- Comment #2 from Ankur Sinha (FranciscoD) sanjay.ankur@gmail.com --- [+] OK [-] NA [?] Issue

** Mandatory review guidelines: ** [?] rpmlint output: [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$ rpmlint ../SPECS/roscpp_core.spec ./roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc19.src.rpm /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/result/*.rpm roscpp_core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libroscpp_serialization.so libroscpp_serialization.so roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/libcpp_common.so libcpp_common.so roscpp_core.x86_64: E: invalid-soname /usr/lib64/librostime.so librostime.so roscpp_core.x86_64: W: no-documentation roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core-debuginfo.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) roscpp -> Roscoe roscpp_core-devel.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US roscpp -> Roscoe 5 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 8 warnings. [asinha@localhost SRPMS]$

^^ The invalid soname errors need to be corrected. Generally, the versioned soname should be present in the package, and the unversioned soname in the devel package as a symlink of the versioned soname. At the present time, the devel package here doesn't even have a shared object in it to link against.

[+] License is acceptable (...) [+] License field in spec is correct [+] License files included in package %docs if included in source package [+] License files installed when any subpackage combination is installed [+] Spec written in American English [+] Spec is legible [+] Sources match upstream unless altered to fix permissibility issues [asinha@localhost SPECS]$ review-md5check.sh roscpp_core.spec mkdir: cannot create directory ‘/tmp/review’: File exists Getting https://github.com/ros/roscpp_core/archive/d0b5ce1d8f42050a5674875b866a7dda6... to /tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz % Total % Received % Xferd Average Speed Time Time Time Current Dload Upload Total Spent Left Speed 100 157 100 157 0 0 119 0 0:00:01 0:00:01 --:--:-- 119 0 0 0 46845 0 0 14953 0 --:--:-- 0:00:03 --:--:-- 44444 58af78843ead517ef8be46df06f90c0b /tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz 58af78843ead517ef8be46df06f90c0b /home/asinha/rpmbuild/SOURCES/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz removed ‘/tmp/review/roscpp_core-0.2.6-d0b5ce1.tar.gz’ removed directory: ‘/tmp/review’ [asinha@localhost SPECS]$ [+] Build succeeds on at least one primary arch [+] Build succeeds on all primary arches or has ExcludeArch + bugs filed [+] BuildRequires correct, justified where necessary [-] Locales handled with %find_lang, not %_datadir/locale/* [?] %post, %postun call ldconfig if package contains shared .so files ^ Please use the correct scriptlets

[+] No bundled libs [-] Relocatability is justified [+] Package owns all directories it creates [-] Package requires others for directories it uses but does not own [+] No duplication in %files unless necessary for license files [+] File permissions are sane [+] Package contains permissible code or content [-] Large docs go in -doc subpackage [+] %doc files not required at runtime [-] Static libs go in -static package/virtual Provides [+] Development files go in -devel package [+] -devel packages Require base with fully-versioned dependency, %_isa [+] No .la files [-] GUI app uses .desktop file, installs it with desktop-file-install [-] File list does not conflict with other packages' without justification [+] File names are valid UTF-8

** Optional review guidelines: ** [-] Query upstream about including license files [-] Translations of description, summary [+] Builds in mock [+] Builds on all arches [-] Functions as described (e.g. no crashes) [?] Scriptlets are sane ^ Missing ldconfig scriptlets

[+] Subpackages require base with fully-versioned dependency if sensible [+] .pc file subpackage placement is sensible [+] No file deps outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin [-] Include man pages if available

Naming guidelines: [+] Package names use only a-zA-Z0-9-._+ subject to restrictions on -._+ [+] Package names are sane [+] No naming conflicts [+] Spec file name matches base package name [+] Version is sane [+] Version does not contain ~ [+] Release is sane [+] %dist tag [-] Case used only when necessary [-] Renaming handled correctly

Packaging guidelines: [+] Useful without external bits [+] No kmods [-] Pre-built binaries, libs removed in %prep [+] Sources contain only redistributable code or content [+] Spec format is sane [+] Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir, /run, /usr/target [+] No files in /bin, /sbin, /lib* on >= F17 [-] Programs run before FS mounting use /run instead of /var/run [+] Binaries in /bin, /sbin do not depend on files in /usr on < F17 [+] No files under /srv, /opt, /usr/local [+] Changelog in prescribed format [+] No Packager, Vendor, Copyright, PreReq tags [+] Summary does not end in a period [-] Correct BuildRoot tag on < EL6 [-] Correct %clean section on < EL6 [+] Requires correct, justified where necessary [+] Summary, description do not use trademarks incorrectly [+] All relevant documentation is packaged, appropriately marked with %doc [+] Doc files do not drag in extra dependencies (e.g. due to +x) [+] Code compilable with gcc is compiled with gcc [+] Build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise [-] PIE used for long-running/root daemons, setuid/filecap programs [+] Useful -debuginfo package or disabled and justified [-] Package with .pc files Requires pkgconfig on < EL6 [+] No static executables [+] Rpath absent or only used for internal libs [-] Config files marked with %config(noreplace) or justified %config [+] No config files under /usr [+] Third party package manager configs acceptable, in %_docdir [+] .desktop files are sane [+] Spec uses macros consistently [+] Spec uses macros instead of hard-coded names where appropriate [-] Spec uses macros for executables only when configurability is needed [-] %makeinstall used only when alternatives don't work [+] Macros in Summary, description are expandable at srpm build time [+] Spec uses %{SOURCE#} instead of $RPM_SOURCE_DIR and %sourcedir [+] No software collections (scl) [-] Macro files named /etc/rpm/macros.%name [-] Build uses only python/perl/shell+coreutils/lua/BuildRequired langs [+] %global, not %define [-] Package translating with gettext BuildRequires it [-] Package translating with Linguist BuildRequires qt-devel [+] File ops preserve timestamps [+] Parallel make [+] No Requires(pre,post) notation [-] User, group creation handled correctly (See Packaging:UsersAndGroups) [-] Web apps go in /usr/share/%name, not /var/www [-] Conflicts are justified [+] One project per package [+] No bundled fonts [+] Patches have appropriate commentary [-] Available test suites executed in %check [-] tmpfiles.d used for /run, /run/lock on >= F15

[asinha@localhost result]$ review-req-check == roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.src.rpm == Provides:

Requires: cmake gtest boost-devel python-sphinx ros-catkin-devel

== roscpp_core-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm == Provides: libcpp_common.so()(64bit) libroscpp_serialization.so()(64bit) librostime.so()(64bit) roscpp_core = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20 roscpp_core(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20

Requires: libboost_date_time-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libboost_system-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libboost_thread-mt.so.1.53.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.14)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) librt.so.1(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6()(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.11)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.15)(64bit) libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4.9)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)

== roscpp_core-debuginfo-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm == Provides: roscpp_core-debuginfo = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20 roscpp_core-debuginfo(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20

Requires:

== roscpp_core-devel-0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20.x86_64.rpm == Provides: pkgconfig(cpp_common) = 0.2.6 pkgconfig(roscpp_serialization) = 0.2.6 pkgconfig(roscpp_traits) = 0.2.6 pkgconfig(rostime) = 0.2.6 roscpp_core-devel = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20 roscpp_core-devel(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20

Requires: /usr/bin/pkg-config roscpp_core(x86-64) = 0.2.6-1.20130605gitd0b5ce1.fc20

[asinha@localhost result]$

A few issues. The blocker is the missing sonames in the devel subpackage. Rich, will this package own %{_includedir}/ros or will one of the other packages, such as ros-release own it? Other ros stacks also might put stuff in there, right?

Additionally, you can break the docs into a separate sub package if you wish. Not a blocker.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |928584 (ros-std_msgs)

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=928584 [Bug 928584] Review Request: ros-std_msgs - Standard ROS Messages

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com

--- Comment #5 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- ping *2.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Christopher Meng i@cicku.me changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|sanjay.ankur@gmail.com |i@cicku.me Flags|fedora-review? |

--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng i@cicku.me --- (In reply to Rich Mattes from comment #6)

Ankur, are you still able to do this review?

I will take this, I spoke with Ankur on FUDCon and he agreed to change.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(richmattes@gmail. | |com) |

--- Comment #9 from Rich Mattes richmattes@gmail.com --- Not for ros-fuerte. 0.2.6 is the latest.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=927462

Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jwakely@redhat.com

--- Comment #11 from Jonathan Wakely jwakely@redhat.com --- Would it make sense for the %description to explain what ROS stands for, or is everyone looking at Fedora packages assumed to know that?